Bill Overview
Title: Respect for Marriage Act
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in same-sex and interracial marriages or those planning such unions
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill provides protection and recognition for same-sex marriages.
- The bill provides protection and recognition for interracial marriages.
- Approximately 4.5% of adults in the United States identify as LGBTQ+, which suggests a significant number of individuals who are involved in same-sex marriages or relationships might be directly affected.
- Interracial marriages make up a growing percentage of marriages, especially in countries like the United States.
- Both LGBTQ+ individuals and those in interracial relationships exist globally.
Reasoning
- The Respect for Marriage Act protects and recognizes same-sex and interracial marriages, offering legal stability and protection to millions who may otherwise face challenges when moving between states or dealing with federal matters.
- LGBTQ+ marriages, although a minority, represent a significant portion of the population, and any policy affecting them directly impacts their wellbeing in a meaningful way.
- Interracial marriages are increasingly common, and this policy ensures that neither racial nor sexual orientation discrimination will affect their marital status.
- The budget constraints mean that efforts to raise awareness and provide information about these legal changes will be vital to ensure maximum benefit from the policy.
- Non-LGBTQ+ and same-race couples will largely remain unaffected, which is reflected in their baseline wellbeing scores which do not change significantly over time post-policy.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me feel secure about our future as a married couple, especially with any potential federal tax or benefits issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing that our marriage will be recognized everywhere in the US is really comforting as we plan our life together.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this act, I feel more confident in legal issues surrounding our kids if we decide to move across state lines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We feel more inclined to get married knowing that our marriage will have consistent recognition across the country.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Artist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy eases our anxiety as a couple who faces multiple layers of discrimination.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s reassuring to know my marriage won’t be questioned as we travel or potentially change our residence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Marketing Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I'm not directly affected, I see this as a major step forward for our society as a whole.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Graduate Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives me hope for a more inclusive future, something to look forward to as I consider starting a family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Real Estate Agent (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing that our union is federally recognized anywhere in the U.S. brings a piece of mind I hadn't realized I was missing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Lawyer (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s an essential law that strengthens equality in the country, making us prouder of our legal system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $22000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $22000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal clarity across all states preventing previous state-based discrepancies is foundational to avoiding future litigation costs.
- Transition costs such as updating databases and forms are temporary and will be offset over time by savings.
- Public and legal education will be crucial for smooth implementation.
- Regular review mechanisms might be necessary to anticipate emerging legal interpretations or legislative updates in response to societal and technological changes.